Consultation outcome

Summary of responses and government response

Updated 15 April 2026

The consultation on modernising the environmental permitting framework for industrial emissions set out broad regulatory reform proposals for initial consultation, with responses informing decisions on more detailed consultations on policy options and legislative changes.

The consultation was hosted on the Citizen Space website. Responses were submitted through Citizen Space and email. A summary of the responses is set out in this document, alongside the government response and next steps for this reform.

Overview

An effective permitting framework for industry is an essential cornerstone to business certainty and a driver of investment into cleaner technologies with significant benefits for public health and the environment.

The consultation recognised that environmental permitting has delivered significant reductions in pollution over time whilst providing industry with a clear framework to work within. However, it also acknowledged that the framework requires modernisation to help get Britain building, deliver clean power, improve public health and clean up our polluted rivers, lakes and seas.

The consultation and this government response is part of a wider programme of work we are undertaking to implement recommendations from the Corry review, which will ensure environmental regulations and associated guidance are effectively delivering environmental outcomes while enabling growth.

The consultation set out a package of reforms which aim to support innovation in emerging technologies, streamline permitting and provide regulatory certainty for businesses. The consultation also sought additional proposals from respondents for reforming the permitting framework.

This government response welcomes the input received from stakeholders on the consultation proposals and seeks to prioritise reforms which will deliver benefits for business and effectively improve the permitting framework.

When further developing and implementing proposals, we will carefully consider any increase in administrative burden and the cumulative impact of changes on business. We will ensure any potential impacts of the proposed reforms on regulatory resourcing or service delivery are considered thoroughly.

We will also continue to consider capacity of the Environment Agency and local authority regulators to implement the reforms.

The consultation recognised the UK’s ambitions to reset the relationship with the EU. The public consultation and government response are for England only. However, we recognise the importance of developing UK-wide approaches to industrial emissions policy where possible and have engaged the devolved governments during the preparation of both publications.

We intend to continue working closely with them in further developing the policy options presented here, in line with the approach agreed through the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: The Developing and Setting of Best Available Techniques (BAT) Common Framework.

Responses received

The consultation was open between 26 August and 21 October 2025 and received 173 responses including:

• 137 respondents who used the consultation website
• 36 respondents who submitted contributions by email

We have categorised the types of respondents and the sectors they represent (if applicable).

The 173 total responses included:

• 103 (60%) from industry or trade associations
• 38 (22%) from local authorities or public bodies, including regulators
• 9 (5%) from the public
• 6 (3%) from non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
• 1 (1%) from an academic body
• 16 which were categorised as ‘other’ or did not answer this question

Goals of the reform

Summary of responses

The consultation set out 5 goals, which formed the chapters:

• Goal 1: Enabling innovation and encouraging new technologies and techniques – developing new approaches to research and development (R&D) trials and regulation of emerging technologies to accelerate the commercialisation of innovation by industry
• Goal 2: Agile standards - rapid, predictable and integrated standard setting – standards are rapidly and transparently updated, delivering clear, simple and adaptable requirements that minimise pollution to protect public health and the environment and support industry investment, productivity and growth
• Goal 3: Proportionate regulation and coherence in the framework – delivering proportionate coverage of emerging clean technologies through a logical and coherent permitting framework, providing clarity on the regulatory position for these technologies and supporting industry planning and investment
• Goal 4: Regulator effectiveness and efficiency – regulators collaborate with industry to set standards and deliver permits, undertake monitoring and enforcement efficiently, costs are recovered in line with the polluter pays principle and interactions with other regimes are understood and improved where needed
• Goal 5: A transparent framework – a transparent and trusted framework that meets international obligations and sets clear requirements on regulators and industry and enables local people to understand the pollution in their area, including through an accurate and comprehensive UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)

Many responses were supportive of these goals, and most respondents proposed additional goals. Several respondents highlighted that permitting should not be a barrier to development and growth, but reforms shouldn’t compromise environment and health protections.

Regulatory capacity and resourcing to deliver permits promptly was the most common consideration from industry, alongside reducing wider administrative burden such as through reporting reform. Specifically, better digital permitting solutions and potential metrics or statutory requirements for permit determination were suggested to support with business certainty.

Cost recovery through fees and charges for local authority regulators was widely raised. Several respondents urged a UK-wide approach and that reforms should support decarbonisation.

Several responses asked that the reform had clear end goals, were coordinated with other environmental regulatory reforms and were communicated effectively to create a stable and predictable policy landscape.

For the water sector specifically, respondents requested clarity on the relationship between industrial permitting reform and water sector reform following the Cunliffe review.

Government response

Together with the Environment Agency, we recognise the importance of an effective and efficient permitting process. The Environment Agency is rolling out a permitting transformation programme designed to modernise the permitting service.

The programme aims to innovate and implement digital, regulatory and business reforms to improve how the Environment Agency provides permissions, making it a more effective, anticipatory and adaptable regulator.

Specific initiatives include:

• a streamlined validation process to speed up determination times and provide clarity to applicants
• targeted guidance that both aides applicants in their application quality and reduces requests for information
• a new priority tracked service for complex multi-permit sites and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) in support of construction and major developments
• phased rollout of a new digital ‘apply and manage’ service, providing an easy-to-use digital platform which will improve customer service and reduce determination times and the number of information requests
• phased release of a new priority tracked service for complex multi-permit and NSIP sites in support of construction and major developments. The initial phase of the service began in April 2025 and is already supporting a hydrogen and carbon capture scheme. This approach will result in quicker timeframes and more flexible decision-making
• progressively updating and improving regulatory guidance to better enable operators to understand their responsibilities

Additionally, Defra is piloting a Lead Environmental Regulator (LER) model to simplify regulation for major projects involving multiple environmental regulators. The LER will:

• coordinate activity across all relevant regulators to reduce delays in planning, permitting and licensing
• provide developers with clearer, proportionate advice on managing environmental impacts

This pilot responds to recommendations from an independent review into Defra’s regulatory landscape that highlighted duplication, delays and inefficiencies in the current regulatory system.

As policies develop and, where relevant, are consulted on in more detail, we will ensure they support growth and continue to deliver improvements to health and environmental protection. We will also ensure sufficient join up between industrial permitting reform and reforms following the Cunliffe Review.

Chapter 1: enabling innovation and encouraging new technologies and techniques

1.1 Regulatory sandboxing

Question: What key factors should be considered when further developing a regulatory sandbox approach for industrial Research & Development (R&D) activities under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (EPRs), ensuring it fosters innovation while maintaining robust environmental and health safeguards?

Summary of responses

100 of 173 respondents answered the question.

This section explored the use of regulatory sandboxes under the EPR, through a new process for approving time-limited Research & Development (R&D) trials for novel technologies at industrial sites. Most respondents supported developing a regulatory sandbox approach, provided that sandboxes are time-limited, proportionate and genuinely speed up approval for trials.

Many industry respondents pointed to issues with the current EPR framework for R&D trials, most notably that permit variations are required for most trials at sites with an existing permit, which can take a long time to agree given regulator capacity and the lack of standards for most technologies at R&D trial stage.

Several examples were provided where R&D trials for a new technology required a permit variation to proceed, but the permit variation required environmental data that could only be gathered through the trial, leading to an impasse.

In further developing sandboxes, respondents called for clear definitions of R&D and eligibility criteria, scale or duration caps and explicit triggers to transition to full permitting. Many industry respondents called for a multi-year duration for sandboxes, with the most common suggestion being 30 months as under the EU’s revised Industrial Emissions Directive (IED 2.0).

Many respondents suggested the process for approving trials and the controls required during trials should be tiered according to risk, with a light-touch process (for example registration) for low-risk and well understood processes and pollutants. There was strong support for monitoring of any significant emissions from trials and a variety of views on the type of assessment and modelling that should be required for approval of a sandbox.

Some argued that modelling against Environmental Assessment Levels (EALs) for all relevant pollutants should be non-negotiable before trials begin, and others argued that complex air quality modelling would significantly increase project timeline and cost, so there should be minimal assessment required prior to approval but with detailed ongoing monitoring during the trial to collect real-world data.

There was general agreement that the agreed ‘operating envelope’ for trials would need to be able to adapt quickly during the trial period to reflect the iterative nature of R&D.

Both industry and regulator respondents highlighted the need for experienced permitting officers, adequate resourcing and consistent national guidance – for example calling for appropriate fees, central guidance and Environment Agency leadership on complex technical topics, including best practice sharing with local authorities.

Industry respondents highlighted the importance of commercial confidentiality for R&D trials, as disclosure of proprietary information would undermine the economic case for many trials. However, there was general agreement that non-confidential information from trials should be made publicly available to aid in the development of scientific evidence and standards for new technologies.

More widely some respondents pushed for an expansion of R&D exemptions for waste activities to align with the exemptions for industrial installations.

Government response

We will amend the framework to better enable R&D trials at permitted industrial installations, including consulting in 2026 on specific proposals.  This reform would aim to significantly speed up approval for R&D trials while maintaining essential public health and environmental protections.

1.2 Commercial confidentiality

Question: Do you have comments on the alternative approaches to commercial confidentiality outlined above, or other suggested approaches that would balance environmental protection, public access to information and innovation?

Summary of responses

76 of 173 respondents answered the question.

This section sought feedback on new models for preserving commercial confidentiality to enable innovation, while protecting the environment and public access to information on emissions.

There was general support for the principle that public access to information on emissions and environmental impacts of industrial installations should be a core component of the framework and is crucial for public trust. However, many industry and trade body respondents argued that current rules around public disclosure of emissions information are having a chilling effect on innovation and commercialisation of new technologies.

Several of these responses focussed on the issue of amine emissions from carbon capture where emissions information can be used to derive the compositions of proprietary products, and under the EPRs and Environmental Information Regulations (EIRs) operators cannot make commercial confidentiality claims relating to emissions.

Many industry and trade body respondents therefore supported changes to the EPRs and EIRs to allow the regulator to make a case-by-case determination on whether the public interest favours withholding or disclosing emissions information, as is currently the case for non-emissions information, rather than automatically disclosing all information on emissions.

However, while some supported this change for full-scale commercial installations, others only supported more targeted changes solely for R&D trials. Firstly, this is because these generally involve lower emissions. Secondly, it is because trials are where the impacts of disclosure are most felt, as benefits from conducting a trial are less likely to justify losing commercially confidential information, whereas it is easier to financially justify disclosure for ongoing commercial operations.

A key consideration is how to balance these views with the general support for the principle that public access to information on emissions and environmental impacts of industrial installations should be a core component of the framework and is crucial for public trust.

Many respondents also supported a more limited change to allow commercial confidentiality claims for information on emissions which are proven not to be harmful to health or the environment. However, evidence of harm is particularly challenging and uncertain for novel pollutants or pollution from novel processes.

Responses from non-governmental organisations, regulators and members of the public argued that information on all emissions should be published and transparency should not be diluted, even where information is commercially confidential.

Some respondents also suggested a range of alternatives to the current approach of disclosing pollutant names and quantities. For instance, this could include disclosing chemical properties (such as hazard properties used in chemicals regulation) rather than names, disclosing emission ranges rather than exact values and only disclosing emissions information when permit limits are breached.

Government response

We will proceed with further detailed policy development on commercial confidentiality so that industry can more rapidly initiate R&D trials. This could include the option of allowing operators to apply for time-limited confidentiality for information on emissions during R&D trials, subject to detailed conditions on trial safety and requirements to disclose the maximum amount of information on emissions that is possible without breaching commercial confidentiality.

We will not pursue further changes to EIR and EPR requirements around public disclosure of emissions information for ongoing commercial operation, for example of amine emissions from carbon capture.

Public access to information on harmful emissions is a fundamental principle of the permitting framework and Aarhus convention, and is crucial to public trust in emerging industries.

We do not consider limited or non-disclosure of information on harmful emissions for large-scale industrial operations would strike the appropriate balance between public health, environmental risks and commercial interests.

1.3 Commercial activity at research and development (R&D) installations

Question: What key factors should be considered when further developing proposals on commercial activity at R&D and testing sites?

Summary of responses

69 of 173 respondents answered the question.

This section explored changes to the definition of the R&D and testing exemption to clarify that genuine R&D sites can make commercial use of any products created without requiring an industrial emissions permit.

Most respondents supported allowing limited sale or use of R&D outputs to reduce waste, prove market viability and support circular economy outcomes.

Some respondents were concerned that this change could create an incentive for commercial activities to claim to be R&D or testing activities to avoid the need for a permit. Many respondents therefore asked for clear criteria and definitions – for example, caps on scale, duration, or sales and clear triggers for the point at which activity becomes predominantly commercial and must be fully permitted.

Many respondents also supported simple registration and light reporting (for example, on annual output or destinations) to keep regulators informed and deter misuse of the exemption.

Government response

We will proceed with this proposal to develop transparent mechanisms and thresholds for identifying genuine R&D along with a simple registration process to avoid abuse of the exemption.  This will enable operators to sell by-products of the R&D process to offset costs and prevent waste.

Given the variety of potential sites and sectors covered, guidance will be provided. However, our intention will be to give regulators discretion to make sensible judgements in line with the recommendations from the Corry review.

1.4 Notification of R&D and testing exemptions with the regulator

Question: What would the benefits and costs be of requiring operators of sites, which fall under the EPRs R&D and testing exemption, to notify the relevant regulator?

Summary of responses

75 of 173 respondents answered the question.

This section sought feedback on the option of requiring operators of sites that fall under the R&D and testing exemption to notify the relevant regulator and provide basic information about the activity.

Many regulators and some industry respondents supported the option. Benefits cited included increased visibility to regulators of new technologies so they can develop standards in advance, increased early engagement between regulators and industry, increased local authority awareness of sites that could have impacts on their air quality or statutory nuisance responsibilities, and greater ability to identify operators who are wrongly claiming to fall under the exemption.

Some industry respondents objected on the basis that it would involve an increase in administrative burden, although others supported the proposal if the process was light-touch and did not require regulator approval for R&D trials to begin.

One industry respondent also flagged the risk of regulatory creep citing the history of waste exemptions, where bringing activity into the regulatory orbit could lead to more burdensome requirements over time.

There were a variety of views on whether operators should be charged for notification, with regulator respondents generally arguing that charges would be helpful in covering administrative work in reviewing notifications (for example, to check they fall under the exemption), and some industry respondents pushing back against any additional costs.

Government response

Taking into account the consultation responses and our commitment to cut administrative costs for business by 25% by the end of the Parliament, we will not be pursuing this option further.

While mandatory notification could improve regulator awareness of new technologies and operator awareness of the permitting system, even light-touch approaches without associated fees would add additional administrative burden to R&D trials.

Instead, we will strongly encourage operators to engage with the regulator at an early stage to provide information on their planned process and to engage with the Environment Agency’s pre-advice service where appropriate.

1.5 R&D and testing exemption for generators

Question: What key factors should be considered when further developing the proposal to exempt R&D and testing of generators from the EPRs?

Summary of responses

61 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Most respondents agreed with the proposal, provided that appropriate safeguards are in place for an exemption.

Many respondents said R&D exemptions should be consistent across industrial activities in the EPR to ensure regulatory coherence and fairness across sectors. Some respondents highlighted that a proportionate exemptions framework for generators would encourage innovation in technologies, including low-carbon and alternative fuel systems, while maintaining environmental protections.

Many respondents highlighted the need for a clear definition of ‘research, development and testing’ to make clear where R&D and testing ends and commercial activity begins. Many respondents noted an exemption should apply to time-limited, non-commercial trials aimed at innovation or performance validation, not to routine operational use.

In further developing an exemption, respondents suggested key considerations should include:

• a clearly defined scope
• environmental risk assessment that accounts for local air quality and AQMAs
• defined duration and scale limits
• safeguards and monitoring such as basic emission control requirements, prior notification to the regulator, safeguards against misuse, and alignment with other R&D exemptions

There were mixed responses as to whether generator manufacturing and production testing should be included in an exemption. A small number of responses said generator manufacturing that regularly tests generators should not be exempt. Whereas a small number of responses said production testing should be included in the exemption as this would improve certainty, increase confidence in long-term investment and support the generator manufacturing industry.

Government response

We will proceed to consulting on the amendment to the regulations based on wide support from respondents. This exemption will align with other R&D and testing exemptions for industrial activities in the EPRs and will have a clearly defined scope with robust safeguards to maintain environmental protection and to prevent misuse.

1.6 Guidance on Emerging Techniques (GET)

Question: Do you have comments or suggestions on whether and how regulation of emerging techniques could be improved?

Summary of responses

79 of 173 respondents answered this question.

This section sought feedback on the UK’s existing regulation of emerging techniques alongside views on the EU’s recent changes. It also proposed a more forward-looking approach to GET in the future.  

Respondents expressed overwhelming support for the use of GET and the existing suite covering decarbonisation techniques. Most agreed that GET provides an agile, timely, and proportionate means of developing initial standards for emerging technologies than the UK BAT system, with one major trade body arguing that it should be “a living framework to capture best practice in new and transitional technologies”.

However, there was a clear desire for better horizon-scanning, with GET as a proactive rather than reactive regulatory tool. This would enable the publication of GET earlier in the innovation cycle, giving operators initial clarity on regulatory intentions, enabling investment planning and an earlier understanding of compliance costs.

To achieve this, many respondents argued for ongoing, structured engagement between government departments, regulators, industry, and academia to identify emerging technologies that may require future regulatory focus.

Most respondents believed GET should be updated dynamically as technology matures and environmental impacts are better understood. Many also agreed that GET should be better integrated into the wider BAT system, although a clear distinction must remain between the two.

Whilst technology must continue to be demonstrated at scale and over appropriate timelines to be considered BAT, GET was seen as vital to the development of an evidence base for future BAT reviews.

Local authorities expressed a general desire for GET to be rolled out more widely, alongside further engagement and guidance from the Environment Agency on the regulation of emerging techniques.

Operators also believed earlier regulator engagement to be beneficial, enabling discussion about the risks and benefits of novel approaches when conducting trials. Industry also sought further clarity on the levels of data and modelling required by regulators, particularly when progressing from pilots to full-scale operation.

Respondents largely supported the EU’s regulatory changes via the new IED 2.0 and its longer six-year timeline to meet emissions limits for emerging techniques, although some local authorities viewed this as excessive.

Government response

GET is crucial to supporting the rollout of innovation whilst providing integrated, proportionate, and risk-based regulation.

Defra will work closely with regulators, the devolved governments, other government departments and industry to put in place a system to identify emerging technologies and develop GET in a structured and timely manner. This will include horizon-scanning to enable proactive use of GET, as well as setting out a roadmap for future GET with the close involvement of industry

We will also closely monitor international approaches to benchmark the UK against global best practice.

1.7 Chapter 1 further ideas

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposals in this chapter will achieve the goal - ‘Enabling innovation and encouraging new technologies and techniques’? If you disagree then please provide alternative suggestions along with supporting evidence where available

Summary of responses

78 out of 173 respondents answered this question.

Of the respondents to this question, 58% agreed that the proposals would achieve the goal compared to 22% saying that they would not. The most common response was that some new technologies and techniques do not fit into existing regulatory categories.

Respondents also raised the importance of implementation, including querying what guidance would be available and what administrative burden the changes could bring.

Considerations such as regulator resourcing and support, including the Environment Agency’s Local Authority Unit, were highlighted in the context of permitting timescales. Other specific issues raised included innovation in the water sector and where end of waste processes could be presenting regulatory barriers.

Chapter 2: Agile standards – rapid, predictable and integrated standard setting

2.1: A more dynamic approach to setting Best Available Techniques (BAT)

Question: What key factors should be considered when further developing the proposal to create a more dynamic approach to setting BAT?

Summary of responses

116 of 173 respondents answered the question.

This section explored creating a more dynamic approach to setting Best Available Techniques (dynamic BAT) by transferring responsibility for setting standards in England to the Environment Agency, working in partnership across the UK, within a clear framework set out in legislation.

Many industry and regulator respondents were concerned about the currently slow pace for reviewing BAT and for implementing BAT that is agreed at Technical Working Groups, in particular for local authority regulated “Part B” sectors.

Regulator respondents and many industry respondents welcomed a system in which the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2016) (EPRs) set out the overall principles and outcomes to be delivered by BAT, and regulators then work with industry to develop sector-specific technical standards within this framework.

Many respondents stated that this approach would improve the speed of standards-setting and regulatory certainty for operators, and would ensure technical experts are central to the process.

A small number of industry respondents were opposed to the proposal on the basis that the current approach of implementing new BAT through statutory instruments ensures a strong degree of government and Parliamentary oversight which is helpful in cases where industry disagree with regulators on BAT.

They also flagged that strong government oversight can ensure that BAT complements wider policy, for example on net zero and growth. At a minimum these respondents requested a system with an escalation process to UK and devolved governments, in the case of major disputes between regulators and industry.

There was some misunderstanding that the current 4-year window for implementation of agreed BAT for existing sites would be shortened, which is not the case.

Many respondents stated that the Environment Agency would need to be appropriately funded to carry out this role and to recruit the necessary sector expertise to carry out BAT reviews. Many also stated that local authorities will need to be closely involved in BAT reviews for sectors that they regulate and will need funding to do this given existing resource constraints.

Several respondents highlighted the need for UK government to work closely with the devolved governments to ensure BAT remains consistent across the UK.

Many respondents provided views on the operation of the BAT system more generally. For example:

• support for increased use of horizontal BAT for processes or impacts that cut across sectors - such as wastewater treatment, fugitive dust and energy efficiency
• push for more proportionality when developing BAT, for example more use of cost-benefit analysis and stronger consideration of investment cycles, cross-media effects (for example, carbon dioxide emissions), capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and alignment with international BAT
• suggestion of taking agreed EU BAT as a starting point for UK BAT reviews
• suggestion of publishing a forward plan for BAT/GET after consultation with industry

Government response

The BAT system is important to industry and it is essential to ensure standards are set in a timely manner with sufficient predictability for businesses to plan investment.

We will work with the devolved governments with the aim of publishing a detailed consultation on dynamic BAT in 2026. This will set out proposed duties on regulators when setting BAT and the design of the proposed system, including around:

• co-production of BAT with industry and civil society
• alignment with government priorities
• routes for independent appeal and escalation to ministers
• alignment of BAT across the UK
• requirements on cost-benefit analysis
• requirements to consult on new BAT

We will also engage with the Environment Agency on how a standards-setting function covering sectoral BAT, horizontal BAT and GET would operate in practice, including publication of forward plans for sector reviews to improve regulatory certainty for industry.

2.2 Horizontal BAT

Question: Do you have comments on the role of horizontal BAT in creating a more dynamic system for setting industry standards?

Summary of responses

100 of 173 respondents answered this question.

This question asked for views on our proposal to explore greater use of horizontal BAT to set mandatory technical standards for processes or technologies that are used in similar ways across all or many industries, and to set more generic or administrative requirements that apply across sectors.

Most respondents were broadly supportive of the proposal, arguing that horizontal BAT could expedite consistent standards for cross-sector principles and emerging sectors, as well as streamline and accelerate vertical BAT reviews.

Horizontal BAT were viewed as a way to encourage operators to deliver significant environmental improvements with limited capital expenditure, especially for more generic or administrative requirements such as Environmental Management Systems (EMS) or emissions monitoring. Respondents believed they should be dynamically updated to keep pace with innovation and align with the government’s wider goals on net zero, decarbonisation and the circular economy.

Respondents expressed strong support for implementation of horizontal BAT only when a new permit is issued or when an existing permit is substantially revised or reviewed. A few did note that this could lead to inconsistencies or reduced site development by operators to avoid triggering a permit review.

There were mixed views on the potential legal status of horizontal BAT, with some respondents arguing that mandatory standards requiring capital investment should only come through vertical BAT and that horizontal BAT should be used to encourage best practice without mandating it.

Respondents’ concerns were largely framed around implementation. The primary concern was the risk of imposing unsuitable horizontal BAT on sectors with unique circumstances and processes (such as food and drink manufacturing), or on smaller installations which may lack the resources or capability to meet certain BAT.

There was therefore a desire for regulatory pragmatism around exemptions, and for operators and sectors to retain flexibility to demonstrate easily where a horizontal BAT conclusion would be inappropriate.

Respondents also consistently emphasised that horizontal BAT should supplement rather than replace or dilute vertical BAT, with absolute clarity on applicability to prevent regulator and operator confusion. The risk of increased complexity and reduced regulatory stability was also raised, particularly by respondents in sectors reliant on long-term funding and investment cycles such as utilities.

There were some suggestions of more radical changes to permitting approaches, such as splitting permits into limits, informed by vertical BAT, and management systems, informed by horizontal BAT.

Government response

We believe that horizontal BAT does have the potential to be a highly effective resource for regulators and operators alike. As one large trade association noted, horizontal BAT offer “an opportunity to make the BAT system more dynamic, coherent, and adaptable”. There are, however, risks associated with incautious application of a broad approach to horizontal BAT.

We will therefore trial crosscutting approaches to standards setting on issues such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), evaluating their efficacy and potential wider applicability before considering whether to institute a broader set of horizontal BAT.

We will continue to engage closely with stakeholders, ensuring that any future horizontal BAT are well-evidenced and fully workable. We will also work closely with the devolved governments to agree any future approach collectively through the UK BAT system.

2.3 Decarbonisation and circular economy standards

Question: What key factors should be considered when further developing policy on decarbonisation and circular economy standards?

Summary of responses

84 of 173 respondents answered this question.

Many respondents flagged concerns around double-regulation and double-reporting, noting that decarbonisation and circular economy objectives are already, to varying extents, covered by other government schemes, such as the Energy Savings Opportunity Scheme (ESOS) and Climate Change Agreements (CCA).

Several respondents indicated that the waste regime created barriers to improving circularity within non-waste sectors - for example, where the use of non-virgin materials can trigger waste permitting requirements that can add administrative and regulatory burden.

Views on making Associated Environmental Performance Levels (AEPLs) mandatory were mixed, though there was strong consensus amongst industry respondents that AEPLs should not be mandatory, owing to funding pressures, disproportionate impacts, sector-specific challenges, and constraints on operational flexibility. However, there was industry support for voluntary AEPL reporting and use of principles in horizontal BAT as best practice.

Several respondents highlighted that larger operators may reduce overall emissions over multiple, interdependent sites and stressed the need for systemic-level policy, rather than regulation on the installation level.

Balancing cross-media effects was a common concern, such as mandatory AEPLs conflicting with UK Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) requirements, and trade-offs between decarbonisation and local air quality impacts. This was true for circular economy considerations also, such as in cases where using virgin materials is less energy intensive than using circular feedstocks.

Government response

We will not be implementing mandatory AEPLs at this time.  Technique and technology specific decarbonisation and circular economy issues will continue to be addressed in sector-specific BAT guidance. This will avoid the issues and uncertainties that might arise from applying generic guidance on these matters across sectors.

However, we will keep the proposal under review and acknowledge the need to consider factors around EU alignment, given the EU has recently introduced mandatory AEPLs. Any future consideration of mandatory AEPLs and horizontal BAT for decarbonisation and circular economy objectives would need to be carefully analysed to avoid conflicting requirements and duplication with other regulations.

2.4: Integrated Pollution Control (IPC) and BAT for all industry - covering Part B installations, small waste incineration plant (SWIPs), solvent emission activities (SEAs), and medium combustion plant (MCP) and specified generators (SG)

Question: Do you have any comments on the proposals to consider applying BAT and integrated pollution control for Part B installations, SWIPs, SEAs, MCP, and SGs? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

86 of 173 respondents answered the Part B question.

56 of 173 respondents answered the Small Waste Incineration (SWIPs) question.

55 of 173 respondents answered the Solvent Emissions Activities (SEA)s question.

74 of 173 respondents answered the Medium Combustion Plant (MCP) and Specified Generators question.

This section sought views on our proposal to ensure BAT and permits include integrated pollution control for all sizes of industry with the aims of consolidating and streamlining regulation, better controlling emissions to water and land to ease pressure on the water system, and reducing pollution from contaminated land.

Most respondents were broadly supportive of the proposals; with near unanimous agreement that they would have a positive impact on the environment and human health. However, there was considerable concern that blanket application across all sectors would be disproportionate and risked overregulation, especially of smaller operators.

Some respondents argued that the existing system was pragmatic and therefore adequate for the environmental risks posed by small industry. Others argued that the need for additional Environment Agency permits such as for water discharge and groundwater activities imposed unnecessary complications on operators, when they could be incorporated into a single permit.

Many respondents, particularly local authorities, supported the expansion of integrated pollution control in permits, believing the statutory nuisance and contaminated land regimes to be inadequate in this context. These existing regimes were seen to be reactive rather than proactive, expensive, difficult to pursue and enforce, and to often create significant uncertainty for both operators and public.

Respondents argued that the proposals could consolidate and streamline regulation, improve consistency and clarity, create a level playing field across sectors, simplify compliance, and update outdated standards for SWIPs and SEAs. Many respondents argued that integrated pollution control and BAT could further control direct pollutant discharges and issues such as noise, as well as ensuring a more proactive approach to design management and to the reduction of leaks, spills and run-off.

This may also benefit operators in the long-term due to wider considerations such as health and safety, product loss prevention and the costs of restoring contaminated land. Other benefits included future-proofing the permitting system, making it more adaptable to emerging technologies and environmental priorities.

The proposals were welcomed particularly by sectors managing multiple regulators, and by those managing several different permitting and legislative regimes. Some respondents from the water sector also welcomed attempts to reduce the pollutant burden on water treatment infrastructure at source. For example, one UK water company noted that “integrated pollution control should reduce potential water pollution risks and provide the benefit of improved coordination with water and sewerage companies”.  

Respondents’ concerns were largely framed around proportionality and the potential costs and burdens of this approach relative to its environmental benefits. This included concerns around the costs of continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), site condition reports, increased complexity and wider impacts on SMEs.

There was also considerable concern from both operators and regulators around the resourcing and capability of local authorities to implement BAT covering integrated pollution control into permits for all of industry. Local authority regulators consistently argued that, in line with the polluter pays principle, fees and charges need to reflect full cost recovery to ensure they can deliver an effective permitting system.

Government response

Integrated pollution control was introduced by the UK before being adopted internationally and continues to be the best approach for providing proportionality and coherence, as well as protecting communities and the environment. It delivers against the Environmental Principle of rectification at source and will help ease pressure on our water system.

We will proceed to detailed consultation on expanding integrated pollution control and the BAT approach to all the above categories in 2026. We will not develop a one-size-fits-all approach, such as automatically applying existing Part A1 or A2 BAT Conclusions (BATC) to much smaller operators. Instead, the BAT process will determine what is proportionate and economically and technically viable depending on the context.

Whilst introducing the integrated, evidence based and collaborative BAT approach to all of the categories of regulated facility mentioned, this approach will continue to maintain separate and specific standards for small industry, as is the case currently with the Process Guidance Notes (PGNs).

We will ensure this approach does not impose disproportionate burdens on operators and continue to work with industry to anticipate and mitigate implementation challenges. This could be achieved through risk-based screening, exclusions and thresholds in guidance or regulator discretion.

Given that the burden of implementing these reforms will fall largely on local authority  regulators, we will also ensure that these proposals are taken forward in close collaboration with our proposed reforms to local authority fees and charges.

2.5: Chapter 2 further ideas

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposals in this chapter will achieve the goal - ‘Agile standards - rapid, predictable and integrated standard setting? If you disagree then please provide alternative suggestions along with supporting evidence where available

Summary of responses

87 of 173 respondents answered this question.

Over a third of respondents agreed that the proposals would achieve the goal, and only a relatively small number disagreed.

Respondents expressed general support for agile, integrated and dynamic regulation that is responsive to operator needs and supports investment, innovation, and wider government growth and decarbonisation priorities.

There was a strong desire for evidence-based, proportionate reform based on the scale and risk of installations, with resources directed towards tangible environmental improvements. Any clarification, simplification and modernisation of regulation, guidance, and industrial standards was welcomed by both operators and regulators.

There was also a request for earlier and deeper engagement with industry, both on regulatory reform and industrial standards setting, as well as defined commitments on timelines for standards reviews. Many emphasised the need to ensure regulators are adequately resourced both to execute their essential functions effectively and also to implement any reforms and additional responsibilities in the future.

Some respondents also expressed wider concerns around the risk of imposing disproportionate regulation on SMEs, low-impact and low-margin sectors, and on emerging sectors critical to net zero, decarbonisation and the circular economy.

Chapter 3: Proportionate regulation and coherence in the framework

3.1 Flexible tiers

Question: Do you have any comments on the proposal to develop more flexible tiers of regulation? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

98 of 173 respondents answered this question.

This section sought views on our proposals to create flexible regulatory tiers for low-risk activities. This would enable regulators to make use of exemptions or simple registration-based approaches for low-risk industrial activities, reducing regulatory burdens upon industry and helping to speed up the deployment of innovative technologies and processes.

Respondents generally believed flexible tiers of regulation to be a proportionate and beneficial development, as long as there were clear criteria and guidance on what constitutes a low-risk activity.

There was particular support for the registration or removal of permitting for low-risk plant and ancillaries such as backup generators, small-scale hydrogen and other decarbonisation technologies. Respondents argued this would allow regulators to focus on higher-risk activities, streamlining and accelerating permitting, enabling rapid adaption to innovation, and encouraging emerging technologies.

There was general support for the suggestion that this proposal would be centrally administered by the Environment Agency, in close consultation with local authority regulators. This should reduce geographic inconsistencies and ensure exemptions are consistent.

Respondents’ primary concern was the risk of such a system being abused and the subsequent impacts on the environment and/or human health. Many raised existing issues with waste exemptions, pointing out that local authorities are often forced to use statutory nuisance powers when complaints are made.

There was therefore a desire for robust oversight, safeguards and perhaps annual reporting requirements. Suggestions included ensuring failure to register was deterred through large penalties and using other enforcement tools, such as time-limited exemptions and revocations.  

Some respondents opposed the proposal outright, arguing that proactive regulation through permitting often identifies and resolves problems early. Registration could therefore lead to cumulatively greater problems further down the line, potentially requiring expensive enforcement action.

Many were also concerned by our proposed non-registered exempt category, questioning how regulators could enforce conditions on sites they are not aware of, and suggesting that registration should be the minimum requirement.

Most respondents believed that a registration fee and small ongoing subsistence fee would be required to cover initial risk assessments and inspection and enforcement costs. Some local authorities also expressed concerns that due to many local authority-regulated activities being relatively low risk, this approach and correspondingly lower fees and revenues could risk the sustainability of their permitting operations.

Government response

We will consult in 2026 on the detail of a more flexible and tiered system of permitting for industrial installations.

This approach has significant merit, especially as green innovation may continue to mean that emerging low-risk activities are captured by the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2016) (EPRs).

The proposal increases the adaptability of permitting in the context of this rapid innovation, allowing regulators to make risk-based judgements without compromising environmental protection. It could also allow regulators to focus on higher-risk activities and speed up permitting approval timelines significantly.

We will ensure there are sufficiently robust deterrents and safeguards to avoid potential abuse of exemptions. For example, the non-registered exempt category would only be used for processes where even registration would be disproportionate – such as where innovation has led to insignificant or even zero emissions but the process would otherwise be captured by permitting.

3.2 MCP Registration

Question: Do you have any comments on permitting versus registration-based approaches for smaller MCP as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

74 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Most respondents supported a registration-based approach for smaller Medium Combustion Plant (MCP), provided there was no regression in standards and implementation issues could be addressed. There were, however, mixed views with some respondents highlighting significant risks and concerns with the proposal.

Many respondents noted the benefits of the proposal which included the potential for streamlined permitting, reduced administrative burden and reduced compliance costs for operators.

A key concern highlighted by some respondents was the ability to quantify the environmental impact or risk of small MCP without a clear assessment framework. Similarly, some responses noted that small MCP represent a significant proportionate of emissions that would then lack regulatory oversight.

In general, respondents supported the principles of a simplified, streamlined approach for small MCP, but some responses questioned the extent to which registration would achieve this. Such responses highlighted that if registration involved the same requirements as permitting, such as meeting Emission Limit Values (ELVs) and monitoring, there may not be any tangible benefit or cost saving. 

Some responses questioned the difference between a registration approach and the existing standard rules permitting approach. One response said adding a new tier of regulatory category may be unnecessary as the existing exemptions framework could instead be utilised to achieve the same aim. 

Some responses supported a registration approach for low-risk MCP, such as back-up generators, but not for all small MCP. A few responses highlighted that, for small off-the-shelf units, emissions standards would be better achieved via equipment manufacturers through product standards. Some responses highlighted that local authorities should be more involved in regulation of small MCP due to local air quality impacts.

A few responses highlighted that an early decision on this proposal is essential as large operators are already drafting plans for 2029 permitting.

Government response

Considering the key points raised by respondents and broader stakeholder engagement, we will not proceed to a detailed consultation on a registration approach for MCP at this time. Further refinement and streamlining of the existing permitting framework will likely achieve the same aims, be a more efficient and effective use of resource and provide greater certainty for operational delivery.

We will use the feedback from the consultation to focus on further streamlining improvements that can bring down permitting times and reduce administration costs. These will include further refining the standard rules framework, for example developing standard rules for back-up generators and, extending standard rules to include biomass.

The regulator will also continue to assess options for reduced fees for back-up generators. We will explore options to open the 2029 permitting window early to minimise impact on permit queues, provide permitting windows for stakeholders with significant number of permits, and facilitate operators of back-up generators to have a single permit for generators at multiple locations.

Further streamlining will be supported though continual digital development and implementing changes to permits and permitting process through regulatory policy review.

We will however proceed with the proposal to remove monitoring requirements for back-up generators (as detailed in section 3.3) which will reduce regulatory burden and administration costs for thousands of plant.  

We acknowledge the concerns about administrative burden and permitting timelines as reflected in responses, and we intend to use the flexibility of the existing EPR regime to adapt and improve streamlined permitting based on the risk profile of the regulated activity.

We note that the cost of a new registration approach for small MCP may not be substantially lower than the current standard rules permitting options as the legislative requirements under registration would not be different. We are mindful that a new registration approach would likely require legislative change and could introduce delays and uncertainty for operators, and note the importance of an early decision and certainty for operators in this area due to legislative deadlines.

We note that the option to move low-risk MCP to registration would still be available in the future under the ‘flexible tiers’ proposal in the consultation. This proposal considers streamlining or removing permitting for some low-risk technologies and the creation of a tiered system of permitting.

3.3 Back-Up Electricity Generation and Data Centres

Question: Do you have any comments on the regulation of back-up generators and data centres as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

68 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Most respondents supported the proposals outlined in this section on the regulation of back-up generators and data centres. There was general support for the ambition to simplify, modernise and align permitting, alongside the commitment to ensure environmental protection while enabling economic growth and technological progress.

Many respondents noted the benefits of the proposals in this section, which included the potential to reduce administrative burden and costs for operators, not negatively impact human health and environment, and provide consistency and certainty for business.

Many responses supported removing monitoring requirements for genuine back-up generators, with some responses citing current generators running additional hours just to meet the monitoring requirements. However, many responses also highlighted the importance of a clear definition of ‘back-up generators’ and that light-touch regulation should strictly apply only to genuine back-up generators so as to ensure environmental protection and a level playing field.

A few responses noted the term ‘emergency back-up’ is inconsistently interpreted across regulatory frameworks. Many responses supported amending Schedule 25B to ensure that generators which self-generate power outside of an emergency are subject to regulation and require a permit.

Some responses raised concerns about removing monitoring for a polluting technology and disagreed that back-up generators are an intrinsically low-risk technology as they are often situated in urban areas where pollution has the greatest impact.

Many local authorities highlighted the need to know the locations of back-up generators to assess local impact. A few responses raised concerns about the growing environmental risks associated with data centres.

One respondent highlighted that data centres permanently store significant quantities of diesel on site which can, if poorly managed, lead to ground and/or water contamination. Some responses highlighted that a range of environmental impacts at data centres need to be considered and in scope, such as CO2 emissions, noise, water usage, fuel storage, emissions to soil and groundwater.

Some responses suggested that data centres should be regulated as a separate activity under the EPRs. Some responses highlighted that Best Available Techniques (BAT) for data centres is lacking and has been problematic for operators, and suggested that Guidance on Emerging Techniques (GET) or BAT for data centres would bring consistency and clarity to permitting arrangements. One respondent included detailed recommendations for appropriate and proportionate monitoring of aggregated back-up at data centres.

One respondent said a registration approach for back-up generation at data centres would have the advantage of simplicity, quicker approval timelines and reduced uncertainty. However, the respondent noted that this would require resource and adequate provisions to ensure appropriate environmental protection, and that streamlined permitting could deliver a workable compromise.

Government response

Given support from respondents, we will proceed to a detailed consultation on the regulation of back-up generators and data centres in 2026. This will include:

• Ensuring there is a clear and enforceable definition of ‘back-up generators’ and ‘emergency use’ supported by robust verification mechanisms. This will account for the emergency-use nature of genuine back-up generators and avoid imposing disproportionate burdens. We intend to clarify Schedule 25B to ensure generators which self-generate power outside of an emergency shall be subject to the appropriate regulation and permit conditions.
• Removing monitoring requirements for genuine back-up generators where no ELVs are set and the data is not used by the regulator. We intend to design this with appropriate environmental safeguards that also account for local air quality impacts.
• Developing options for a simplified, proportionate and risk-based approach to permitting of aggregated back-up generators at data centres. We intend to ensure there are appropriate safeguards to protect health and the environment, that considers the evolving role of data centres and their potential impact on local air quality and the environment, and that requirements do not impose disproportionate burdens on operators.
• Further developing options include GET for back-up generators and aggregated back-up generation at data centres, and further options for data centres to be regulated as a separate activity in the EPRs.

3.4 Hydrogen production

Question: Do you have any comments on the most proportionate approach to permitting of hydrogen production via the electrolysis of water? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

40 of 173 respondents answered this question.

Half of the respondents expressed support for the proposal to set a new threshold for the permitting of hydrogen in Schedule 1 of the EPRs. The remainder generally expressed mixed views or noted the environmental risks associated with hydrogen production, including areas where evidence and full understanding of risk is limited.

Many respondents were supportive of aligning with the EU’s threshold of 50 tonnes per day of hydrogen produced via electrolysis to ensure a level playing field for UK industry. A few noted that the majority of near-term UK projects would be exempt under this threshold, while one respondent stated that a single threshold may introduce unintended consequences and potential loopholes when compared to a tiered approach to permitting.

Many respondents highlighted the need to fully assess the risks to environmental and human health, including the cumulative risks of numerous smaller sites and the need for monitoring. Risks and interactions relating to the water sector, including abstraction, water stress, sewerage and wastewater flows were also flagged, alongside alignment to Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) 2016, the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Regulations 2015 and requirements relating to hydrogen quality and storage.

The benefit of reduced permitting costs for smaller producers was also raised, as were acknowledging the need of funding to local authorities for any additional administrative costs. Many respondents suggested considering a registration approach for sites below the permitting threshold.

Government response

We recognise that reconsidering the threshold for the permitting of hydrogen production via electrolysis of water may be an opportunity to encourage uptake and ensure a level playing field with the EU for a technology that will likely play an important role in the energy transition. However, it is important to understand the safety, health and environmental risks that may be associated with the electrolytic production of hydrogen and we acknowledge that some of these risks are not yet fully known.

We will consult in 2026 on more detailed proposals to ensure that regulation of hydrogen production via electrolysis of water is proportionate to the size of plant and their environmental impacts.

Through this consultation we will consider the appropriate tiering of regulation, including by reconsidering thresholds for environmental permits and the potential to use simplified registration-based or other regulatory options for low-risk sites. This will include careful consideration of how this work aligns with the broader regulatory landscape (including interactions with COMAH, Hazardous Substances regulation and wider hydrogen regulation) and of the relevant environmental and health impacts.

Though water stress and abstraction are not considered within environmental permits for industry, we note interactions with the water sector including risks around water resources and emissions to water

Alongside this, the Environment Agency are looking at options to reduce the regulatory burden of permitting for electrolytic hydrogen production installations under current thresholds, for example small-scale installations which meet the criteria can already obtain a standard rules permit as a Low Impact Part A Installation.

3.5 Sub-Surface Hydrogen

Question: Do you have any comments on groundwater permitting of sub-surface storage of hydrogen? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

32 of 173 respondents answered this question.

The majority of responses were supportive of amending the list of permittable substances for direct discharge to groundwater within Paragraph 8 of Schedule 22 to the EPRs to include hydrogen storage in deep aquifers and depleted oil and gas reservoirs. Several industry respondents acknowledged the promise of subsurface hydrogen storage to support decarbonisation and the hydrogen economy.

However, many also urged a cautious approach given uncertainties around safety, leakage, impacts to the environment and water sources, noting the need to fully understand the risks involved. In particular, respondents from the water sector highlighted the need for thorough assessments and close engagement with sector stakeholders and regulators to ensure groundwater and water sources are protected.

Several responses were received setting out detailed technical considerations for subsurface storage, for example those around monitoring, leak detection and uncertainties in the integrity of other types of potential geological storage sites. Respondents also noted the need to align with other regulatory regimes, including COMAH and the Hydrogen Storage Business Model.

Government response

We agree that the sub-surface storage of hydrogen should be underpinned by a thorough understanding of the risks posed to the environment and human health, including water sources. We also recognise the need to align the enablement of sub-surface hydrogen storage with the broader regulatory landscape, including COMAH and the economic regulation of hydrogen, and with the requirements of the water sector.

Storage of hydrogen in deep aquifers and depleted oil & gas reservoirs cannot be lawfully permitted unless hydrogen storage is added to the list of permittable activities for direct discharge to groundwater under Paragraph 8 of Schedule 22 of the EPRs.

We will proceed with the development of this proposal to lift this prohibition and enable groundwater activity permitting for the sub-surface storage of hydrogen. We will continue to develop an evidence base of the risks relating to the sub-surface storage of hydrogen, as well as reviewing interactions across regulatory regimes and engaging closely with stakeholders across industry, regulators and water companies.

The Environment Agency has also initiated an evidence review for sub-surface hydrogen storage to review available information on environmental aspects of emerging techniques.

The developed proposal on sub-surface storage of hydrogen will be brought to a future public consultation.

3.6 Carbon capture

Question: Do you have any comments on the regulation of carbon capture activities as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

45 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Carbon capture for the purpose of geological storage is already an activity in the EPRs, however not all carbon capture activities are included. The consultation therefore proposed adding utilisation and direct air carbon capture to ensure consistent and proportionate coverage for all activities.

Most respondents agreed with the proposal on the regulation of carbon capture activities as this will ensure the activities are appropriately safeguarded and that all CCUS technologies operate in a level playing field. There was broad agreement that a consistent framework would support decarbonisation and UK net zero goals while protecting health and the environment.

Many respondents noted the benefits of the proposal, including creating a level playing field, ensuring consistent standards across technologies, giving clarity and certainty to businesses, helping to streamline and enable deployment of carbon capture, and improving environmental oversight.

Some respondents highlighted concern regarding potential delays and constraints that could slow the timely deployment of these technologies. This included concerns regarding the capacity and sufficient understanding of regulators given the novel nature of carbon capture technologies.

Many respondents said regulation should account for a variety of carbon capture techniques, then apply a risk-based permitting approach to avoid disproportionate permitting on low-risk technologies.

There was support for focusing on clear standards for hazardous solvents and pollutants such as amines, whilst it was noted that systems such as membranes would have low or no environmental risks. Some respondents said the framework should differentiate biogenic emissions from fossil-based systems, so as not to apply disproportionate permitting on low-risk processes.

Many respondents supported an amendment to the regulations to cover new and developing future carbon capture techniques. This would maintain a level playing field and avoid the need for further updates to the regulations in the future.

A few responses said the principles of proportionate and fair regulation should extend to ‘solid-state capture’ processes and the production of solid carbon.

Government response

Wide support from respondents further validates the proposal on the regulation of carbon capture activities under the EPRs. We are therefore proceeding to consult on the amendment to the regulations, which will be published in 2026.

3.7 Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS)

Question: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of using environmental permitting to manage the risks and impacts to public health and the environment of fires at BESS sites? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

73 of 173 respondents answered the question.

There was overall support from respondents for stronger regulation on fire risk and impacts at BESS sites, but there was a varied view on the most appropriate regulatory option. Of those who gave a clear position, more were opposed to regulating BESS under environmental permitting than supported the proposal.

Respondents who supported adding BESS to the EPRs thought that the main benefits would be providing:

• a mechanism for regular inspection and enforcement
• clarity and consistency to standards and the management of fire risks
• improved public perception/confidence
• mandatory standards which would improve safety of BESS sites and prevent impacts to public health and the environment
• an established regulatory framework which could be resourced appropriately through industry charging

Some respondents stated that there would be no net cost to implementing permitting for new BESS sites and that they could actually benefit from lower costs due to insurer confidence. A few respondents emphasised the need for a clear, quick decision and a proportionate regulatory approach.

Of those who did not support the proposal, many argued that covering BESS through the EPRs as well as the planning system could result in more administrative burden, and additional costs and delays to project timelines for developers and industry, creating a barrier to site development and growth. 

Some respondents mentioned that the regulator would require additional resource and training of permitting officers to enforce any new regulations which would also result in extra costs.  It was also mentioned that further delays could be possible if the regulator does not have the capacity to manage permit applications and these are not issued within target timescales.

Some responses suggested alternative options, with a mix of views of what this could be. Many respondents referred to the existing coverage of fire safety and environmental impacts at BESS sites through the planning system, with some respondents suggesting enhancing the planning system to include any environmental permitting requirements which would avoid duplication of schemes.

A small number of respondents thought the COMAH regime would be a more appropriate route. There was also mention of HSE enforcement of a code of practice on safety measures and pollution prevention.

Some respondents noted that aligning or compliance with existing standards or guidance would be an effective method for managing the risks and impacts of BESS fires. 

Other alternative options that were also suggested were an exemption or registration scheme, generation licence, permit or regulation by the Fire and Rescue Service.

Government response

We will proceed with further detailed policy work on including BESS as an activity in the EPR. The ongoing monitoring and inspection requirements under the EPRs will ensure fire risks and impacts at BESS sites are appropriately managed and mitigated. We acknowledge concerns about cost to business and will explore proportionate approaches based on the risk profile of the regulated activity.  

The Environment Agency  plan to carry out an evidence gathering project to further understand the BESS sector, including potential impacts on existing sites, current standards, and the public health and environmental impacts which can result from BESS fires. 

The outcomes of the project will feed into a final policy decision and inform engagement with industry through a Technical Working Group to develop evidence-based standards.

3.8 Battery manufacturing

Question: Do you have any comments on the regulation of battery manufacturing as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

31 of 173 respondents answered this question.

The majority of responses to this question were supportive of the proposal to define battery manufacturing as a Part A1 activity under the EPRs, but there were some concerns expressed by respondents.

Of the responses that were in agreement with the proposal, the benefits of regulation mentioned included streamlining of applications and compliance, closing of an existing regulatory gap and allowing appropriate comprehensive standards to be developed.   Some respondents also mentioned that a consistent and properly resourced approach to permitting would help secure investment and support growth of the sector.

A small number of responses were supportive of lowering the threshold and defining thresholds in terms of the chemicals used rather than the weight of batteries – stating that this would be a more proportionate approach to the risks being regulated.

There was strong agreement that the Environment Agency should be the regulator as they have existing expertise and technical knowledge. Other benefits mentioned were greater consistency, including easier and faster compliance for businesses and the Environment Agency having the appropriate charging structure to be able to permit these complex operations.      

Those not fully supportive of the proposal still generally agreed with the principle of regulation, but raised concerns about Environment Agency capacity, permitting delays and regulatory proportionality. The view of respondents was less about opposing regulation outright and more about ensuring it is resourced, flexible and proportionate so that it protects the environment without slowing down innovation or investment.

Government response

Government will consult on adding battery manufacturing as an activity to the EPRs and establish the Environment Agency as the regulator, as an appropriate and proportionate way of regulating the sector.

3.9 Non-Waste anaerobic digestion (AD)

Question: Do you have any comments on the regulation of non-waste anaerobic digestion as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

52 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Most respondents that answered this question strongly supported bringing non-waste anaerobic digestion (AD) facilities within the EPRs. There was clear and widespread support for the principle of introducing consistent regulation, with respondents also highlighting several considerations to be addressed if implementation goes ahead, to ensure it is effective and proportionate.

Respondents thought that consistent regulation would strengthen environmental protection, simplify compliance and create a level playing field. They noted that risks such as emissions, odour and containment are similar for waste and non-waste AD facilities. They also mentioned that clearer regulatory requirements would support investment certainty and align with circular economy objectives.

Many respondents raised points about proportionality and cost, particularly for small on-farm AD plants. They said full permitting and retrofitting to meet Best Available Techniques (BAT) requirements could be complex and costly. Respondents warned this might lead to site closures, reduced investment and negative impacts on renewable energy deployment and net zero ambitions.

Respondents therefore called for a risk-based approach with tiered thresholds, lighter-touch options for low-risk sites, transitional arrangements, clear definitions of non-waste feedstocks and adequate resourcing for regulators to prevent delays.

Only one respondent opposed the proposal. A trade body representing small on-farm AD operators argued it could make these operations economically unviable. Some respondents also raised environmental considerations related to reliance on crop-based AD feedstocks, including land-use change and associated greenhouse gas emissions.

Government response

We will consult on ensuring non-waste AD is captured as an activity in the EPRs in 2026. This will involve working with industry, regulators and stakeholders to agree an approach for non-waste feedstocks that is practical, effective and proportionate to environmental risk, drawing on existing frameworks where appropriate.

We will ensure thresholds prevent onerous burdens being placed on smaller facilities and provide a lead-in period to allow adjustment for sites that do fall under regulation.

3.10 Metals and minerals

Question: Do you have any comments on the mining and treatment of metals and minerals as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

34 of 172 respondents answered this question.

Respondents generally welcomed unifying the regulations and regulator for the mining sector and acknowledged the need to comprehensively protect the environment from the impacts of mining activity. However, some industry respondents highlighted that simplifying regulations should not come at the cost of disproportionate requirements to the sector.

Many respondents also noted that making the extraction and on-site treatment of ores a Part A1 activity will need to involve careful consideration to avoid duplication and ensure coherence across overlapping regulatory regimes, including those for planning and waste.

Several respondents emphasised the need for clarity around how existing permits and related Part B permitted activities will be managed alongside this new Part A1 activity. A few respondents suggested a future Call for Evidence exercise to explore these issues in more detail.

Some respondents commented on the increased cost and burden on industry that could be required from additional application costs, retrospective implementation of monitoring infrastructure to existing sites and new financial provisions.

Government response

We will consult on making the regulations and regulator for the mining sector more coherent, recognising that mining can have significant environmental impacts and there is an urgent need to ensure extractive activities are regulated appropriately. However, future reforms to the regulation of these activities must carefully harmonise the current piecemeal requirements for the sector to ensure clarity and minimal burden on operators, including alignment with other related regulatory regimes covering planning, waste and water sectors.

Securing our supply of critical minerals is vital to economic growth, resilience and the clean energy transition. The UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy sets out 2 main policy objectives to optimise domestic production and build resilient supply networks.

This will include efforts to grow domestic production and address barriers facing businesses. The timing and nature of future permitting reforms must align with these aims.

3.11 Alternative thermal treatment

Question: Do you have any comments on the regulation of alternative thermal treatment as outlined in this section? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

47 of 173 respondents answered the question.

A majority of respondents agreed with the proposal on the regulation of alternative thermal treatment.

Many respondents noted a number of benefits to the proposal. These included regulatory clarity and certainty, supporting development and investment in the sector, and the removal of burdensome requirements, which would manage risks proportionately while enabling faster permit determinations and reduced permitting times.

Respondents also expressed that the proposal would support circular economy and decarbonisation objectives by potentially reducing waste volumes, and also cited the potential to reduce harmful emissions and improve environmental outcomes.

In further developing the proposal, respondents suggested key considerations including a clearly defined scope, with a few respondents suggesting exclusion of mechanical recyclable materials and woody biomass. Some respondents highlighted that technologies are wide-ranging with varying environmental and emissions risks. 

Some responses cited the potential for alternative thermal treatments to remove or destroy emerging harmful substances such as PFAS from wastewater. 

Some responses suggested removing alternative thermal treatment from IED Chapter IV and instead regulate it as a separate sector or activity that includes non-waste feedstocks.

Government response

Wide support from respondents further validates the proposal. We will therefore proceed to adding alternative thermal treatment as an activity to the EPRs. We will undertake a detailed consultation on options in 2026.

3.12 Regulator responsibilities

Question: Do you have suggestions of regulated activities where a change in regulator would be beneficial? Please set out how your proposal would result in benefits to yourself or your organisation, or where proposals would result in harm or benefits to human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

80 of 173 respondents answered this question.

This question asked for views on any regulated activities which would benefit from a change of regulator.

Respondents expressed overwhelming support for a review of the regulatory split between the Environment Agency and local authorities, alongside a more general review of duplication and overlap between regimes such as permitting, planning, statutory nuisance and contaminated land, and COMAH.

However, both operators and regulators defended the structure of the extant system, which broadly places smaller, lower risk installations with local impacts under local authority regulation, and larger, higher risk installations with regional or national impacts under Environment Agency regulation.

Whilst some respondents believed the Environment Agency should regulate a much larger array of, or even all, installations, others mounted a strong defence of local authority regulation.

These respondents argued that a local perspective can bring a strong understanding of planning, site specifics and history, and often correspondingly better relationships with operators. This was seen as important to resolve issues such as nuisance complaints rapidly, given small industry frequently operates in close proximity to residential areas.

Some operators explicitly stated that good personal relationships and general confidence in regulatory expertise is more important than whether they are specifically Environment Agency or local authority regulated.

Respondents raised a large number of specific sectors and processes in their responses, mostly arguing for specific sectors to be upgraded to A1 or A2, or for the entirety of some sectors (such as waste incineration) to be Environment Agency regulated.

Some respondents argued that the Environment Agency should regulate all forms of emerging technology to reduce geographic inconsistency and pool early sectoral expertise rather than see it dispersed across local authorities. Some sectors, notably SWIPs and MCPs, were pointed to as seemingly contradicting the broad concept of the regulatory framework outlined above.

Several respondents raised concerns about the difficulties associated with consolidating permits under one regulator through the Regulation 33 process. This was seen as a potentially mounting issue due to the increasing frequency of activities such as MCPs, Specified Generators (SGs), and co-located hydrogen electrolysers at local authority regulated installations requiring Environment Agency permits.

Government response

Regulators are essential for the effective implementation of the permitting framework. England’s current system and split between the Environment Agency and local authorities ensures higher risk installations have the focus of the national regulator, whereas local authorities can regulate lower risk sites with crucial insight from a local perspective.

We will examine the specific sectoral regulatory changes that respondents have suggested. We will also revise guidance to improve regulatory effectiveness.  

We understand respondents’ concerns that regulators may lack suitable resources to regulate additional sectors or handle regulatory transfers, particularly as local authorities currently lack the ability to recover costs for the Regulation 33 process.

This is being considered as part of our proposed reforms to local authority fees and charges outlined in Chapter 4. We also recognise the desire of some operators to consolidate permits under one regulator to ease their administrative burden.

We will therefore ensure that this process is administratively streamlined as far as possible to deliver decisions quickly when they are required.

3.13 Chapter 3 further ideas

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposals in this chapter will achieve the goal - ‘Proportionate regulation and coherence in the framework’? If you disagree then please provide alternative suggestions along with supporting evidence where available

Summary of responses

84 of 172 respondents answered this question.

43% of respondents to this question agreed that the proposals in chapter three would achieve the stated goal and 7% disagreed.

Many respondents felt that both the regulations and accompanying guidance needed simplification. For example, some respondents highlighted that certain activities are fragmented under multiple schedules of the EPRs, making requirements difficult to follow for operators and regulators alike.

Similarly, respondents raised the need to consolidate and centralise guidance notes, so that operators could easily access the information needed to fully understand their requirements and produce high quality permit applications. The long-overdue need for updated guidance and issues relating to out-of-date guidance was another common theme.

A small number of respondents cautioned against oversimplifying guidance or taking the intention to reduce administrative burdens too far and removing essential regulation.

Chapter 4: Regulator effectiveness and efficiency

4.1 Outline permitting

Question: Do you have any comments on the outline permitting approvals approach as outlined in this section? 

Summary of responses

100 of 173 respondents answered this question.

This section sought views on options for staged approaches to permitting, including initial outline permitting approval for complex projects to provide sufficient certainty for investors.

Whilst respondents expressed general support for any measures that might give operators and investors earlier certainty on permitting in order to de-risk capital investment, there was considerable hesitation around formalised outline permitting.

Some respondents believed such an approach to be workable only for larger sites, whilst others argued the opposite, as large, complex, multi-permit and Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) often experience considerable change during design and build, and can be more locally sensitive.

Some respondents emphasised the potential utility of this approach for emerging technologies vital for net zero and decarbonisation (such as hydrogen and carbon capture) and innovative utilities projects. These sectors and projects can be capital intensive, and reliant on schemes such as Hydrogen Allocation Rounds (HAR) or the Ofwat Innovation Fund which may require early-stage certainty and demonstrable risk management to secure funding.

However, many respondents questioned the effectiveness of such an approach and its potential environmental impacts. Several campaigns and NGOs were concerned that regulators could feel pressured into approving inadequate permits if the applicant had previously received outline approval. This approach also risks clashes between operators and regulators if final permits are rejected after outline approval.

Many respondents argued that the level of regulatory rigour required to give operators sufficient legal certainty for investment would be so high as to effectively negate any benefits of such an approach. One local authority respondent noted that from their experience with the outline planning system, “you still need to understand the potential issues and implications, but with less detail available to you”, which can in some cases “make the regulator more cautious, not less so”.

Another common concern was the risk that an outline permitting system could impose significant further resource demands on regulators. Many argued that the government’s focus should instead be on accelerating the permitting process, removing a barrier to industrial transformation and growth and negating much of the need for an outline permitting system.

Government response

Based on the responses received we will not be proceeding with this proposal.

We understand the desire of industry for a more efficient permitting system that enables them to invest confidently, however this proposal risks adding another step into the process without providing the certainty industry are requesting, as the permit determination would still be contingent on a final decision by the Environment Agency.

We will continue to work closely with regulators to improve the speed and consistency of installation permitting across England. We encourage industry to consider using the pre-application and Priority Tracked Services where appropriate.

4.2 Flexible permitting

Question: Do you have any comments on the use of the flexible permit approach as outlined in this section?

Summary of responses

84 of 173 respondents answered this question.

This section sought views on the use of flexible permits for complex sites, such as allowing flexibility below a cap on a site’s overall emissions.

Respondents expressed strong views on this proposal, although there was general support for the concept if robustly monitored and enforced. Many argued that flexible permitting better reflects the operational realities of modern industry and could reduce the regulatory burden on both operators and regulators without compromising environmental protection.

There was general agreement that this approach could only work for large sites with many point sources, and particularly where those point sources emit similar, high volumes of relatively uniform pollutants. Sites with a few high-impact point sources and many low-impact ones, or sites emitting low-volume, high-concentration pollutants may be less suitable.

Some respondents did raise concerns, arguing that a reliance on overall emissions caps could weaken environmental protection, undermine Best Available Techniques (BAT), and lead to unnecessary but legal pollution.

Some argued that operators could reduce investment in newer, cleaner technology if they could use their flexible permit to ‘balance’ the higher emissions of their older, more polluting plant. The risk of cross-country inconsistencies was also raised, as was the potential for identical plant to be operating under different standards in a site under a traditional permit to one under a flexible permit.

Respondents indicated this proposal could be particularly effective in enabling operators to manage conflicting net zero and decarbonisation requirements – such as when reducing more harmful emissions may increase less harmful ones. This was raised particularly in the context of the Common Waste Gas Management and Treatment Systems in the Chemicals Sector (WGC) BAT conclusions.

Respondents also argued the proposal could reduce the need to apply for permit variations, with many expressing considerable frustration at the current need to apply for full variations even when these will result in reduced emissions, such as when changing feedstock or replacing combustion plant, and the timelines associated with granting these variations.

There was therefore a general belief that this approach could aid industry and government progress towards key goals on the circular economy and decarbonisation via low-carbon fuels and other novel and emerging technologies.

Government response

There could be merit in this approach for certain more complex industrial installations, with a potential to reduce costs to industry while continuing to enforce rigorous standards of environmental protection. We will therefore bring forward proposals for trials at a particular site or in a specific sector.

This trial will take into account that this approach would only be appropriate for a relatively small number of operators with large sites, high levels of experience and a strong history of compliance. A flexible permitting approach must recognise that not all point sources have the same environmental impact.

Factors such as stack height, release temperature, and proximity to Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) or sensitive receptors such as surface waterways or residential areas must also be considered. Any approach will also consider pollutant selection carefully in order to avoid unintended consequences.

4.3 Industrial clusters

Question: Do you have any comments on whether further action is needed to improve the environmental permitting framework to allow regulators to manage environmental capacity for industry in an effective and fair way? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

73 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Most respondents agreed that further action is needed to modernise environmental regulatory frameworks to help regulators manage environmental capacity in industrial clusters.

Concerns were raised that current permitting is too rigid and does not adequately make space for technological changes, local environmental constraints or needs of flexible industrial operation.

Many respondents warned that first-come-first-served allocation systems could unfairly lock out new and more environmental-conscious industry, especially when previously permitted projects never materialise. Water availability was widely identified as a key constraint requiring better spatial planning and support for recycling and reuse.

A strong theme was support for shifting from a purely site-by-site approach to a more strategic, area-based approach to handle environmental headroom in industrial clusters. Respondents argued that this would allow shared assessment of environmental capacity, fairer allocation of limited resources and better reflection of cumulative impacts.

Respondents highlighted a number of additional potential solutions including offsetting or headroom transfers, multi-site permits, and incentives to drive innovation within clusters.

Many highlighted the need for clear governance within clusters to determine who sets limits, how they are managed and how impacts from different permits would be monitored. Extensive guidance and time to adjust were flagged from respondents as critical for any plans in this space.

Some respondents stressed that any reforms must avoid disadvantaging existing operators or introducing disproportionate administrative costs, particularly for nationally critical or resource-intensive industries.

Government response

There is value in improving environmental regulation of industrial clusters to ensure it supports effective and fair management of environmental headroom. However, the site-by-site nature of the permitting system means it is unlikely to offer the strategic and area-based approach required to fully resolve environmental headroom issues.

There may be opportunities for environmental permitting to support delivery of environmental limits determined through strategic area-based mechanisms which Defra will explore with other Departments.

4.4 Planning

Question: What key factors should be considered when exploring options for better alignment of the planning and environmental permitting systems for industry?

Summary of responses

86 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Most respondents supported improving alignment between planning and environmental permitting to reduce duplication, delays and uncertainty. Many agreed that clearer boundaries are needed between the two regimes, with planning focusing on land use and permitting addressing operational impacts.

Respondents highlighted the benefits of processing planning and permitting applications in parallel. They noted this can prevent situations where planning permission is granted before a permit is issued, which may lead to costly redesigns or conflicting conditions. However, some observed that parallel processing may be less suitable for complex or evolving projects.

Early engagement was widely seen as important. Respondents called for joint pre-application discussions and more consistent, timely advice from regulators. Many emphasised the need for updated national guidance to clarify roles and responsibilities and avoid duplication.

There were also requests for sector-specific guidance for emerging technologies such as hydrogen production and battery storage.

Several respondents proposed more integrated processes, including single or combined applications, shared digital platforms and standardised assessments for issues such as noise and air quality.

Others suggested outline or interim permits to provide early certainty for investors. Some also favoured fee-based fast-track services to improve resourcing and speed.

Concerns focused on poor coordination between regimes, inconsistent standards and unclear responsibilities. Respondents reported that planning committees sometimes impose conditions that duplicate or conflict with environmental permit requirements.

There were also calls to improve alignment with other regulatory frameworks, including Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations (COMAH) and flood risk requirements.

While most respondents supported closer alignment, they stressed that any reforms should avoid introducing new delays or added complexity. Overall, respondents agreed that better integration, clearer guidance and improved communication between planning and permitting regimes would help create a more efficient system.

Government response

In addition to work already underway that has been outlined earlier (see “Goals of the reform”), we will continue to review suggestions to reduce duplication, delays and uncertainty on a case-by-case basis, working across government and with regulators and other stakeholders.

We will also work with these organisations to streamline data requirements from the planning and permitting processes.

4.5 Local Air Quality Management (LAQM)

Question: Do you have any comments on how to achieve better alignment between the Local Air Quality Management and environmental permitting regimes?

Summary of responses

71 of 173 respondents answered this question. 

Most of the respondents supported better alignment between the LAQM and EPR regimes. Respondents emphasised support for earlier and improved collaboration between the Environment Agency and local authority during EPR and Annual Status Reporting (ASR) processes. Industry also expressed interest in earlier communications. 

There was also strong support for better quality, aligned and integrated data between LAQM and EPR. Benefits identified included improved knowledge, transparency and a better evidence base. This could reduce regulatory burden and enable more effective targeting of pollutants to reduce emissions, supporting public health and environmental outcomes. Suggested actions included the following:

• updating and improving the Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)
• aligning data for pollutant types and exceedance calculation methodologies
• modifying ASRs to include industrial emissions data and permit details. Some respondents however, expressed concern that more complex reporting requirements could strain local authority resources

There was mixed support for tighter permit conditions to automatically be put in place by the Environment Agency where there is a relevant AQMA. Those in support gave reasons that high pollution areas should have stricter controls to prevent further emissions regardless of source, to support public health and environmental outcomes.

Some respondents agreed additional controls may be needed in some circumstances but preferred a targeted evidence-based approach rather than automatic tightening. These respondents expressed concerns that operators not responsible for exceedances could be disadvantaged because of proximity to AQMAs that are primarily for emissions from road vehicles or domestic combustion.

Some respondents felt that existing systems, particularly Best Available Techniques (BAT), were sufficient.  

Government response

Considering the responses we received to the consultation and the complexities raised, we do not intend to pursue changes around LAQM at this time.  We will, however, explore solutions to improve the quality and alignment of data between the Local Air Quality Management and permitting regimes.

4.6 Local Authority fees and charges

Question: Do you have any comments on improving the system for setting LAs permitting fees and charges? Please set out any evidence regarding current shortfalls in cost recovery. Additionally, please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

81 of 173 respondents answered this question.

There was strong support for reviewing local authority fees and charges and improving cost recovery for regulatory effort. Respondents indicated that improved cost recovery could strengthen regulator capacity and skills; deliver faster, better-quality services; and uphold the polluter pays principle.

Many respondents felt an update was overdue, with current fees and charges disproportionate to regulatory costs.  An automatic annual inflationary uplift received high support, particularly from local authorities, with some indicating a full review should be undertaken periodically, and there were calls for mechanisms to hold Defra accountable if reviews do not occur. 

Some proposed exploring a methodology similar to the Environment Agency incorporating time and cost elements although others warned this could add complexity and increase regulatory burden and costs to industry. 

There was minimum support for local authorities setting their own fees and charges.  This received significant opposition due to the administrative burden for local authorities, and the negative consequences of inconsistent geographical rates. The preference was for a consistent nationally set rate. 

Operators and regulators agreed that that the framework should be proportionate, transparent and predictable to enable business planning. 

Concerns highlighted by local authorities included an outdated risk register and a risk of compromised services due to undercharged or uncharged processes. 

Industry also acknowledged these concerns, with some indicating that faster improved services could justify higher fees.  Some respondents suggested improvements may be achieved by reassigning regulatory responsibilities.

Whilst support for cost recovery was high, respondents stressed that changes should not overburden industry, especially low-risk and small businesses. However, local authorities noted that disproportionate time is often spent on low-risk operators, and it was important to consider this as part of a review. 

Suggested solutions included streamlining processes for low-risk operators and using technology to speed up regulatory processes.

Government response

It is important that cost recovery is achieved through fees and charges and that environmental permitting is properly resourced to provide good services for operators and local communities. Government will consult on a reformed system for fees and charges for local authorities in 2026 which ensures predictable and regular updates.

4.7 Emission Limit Value guidance change

Question: Do you have any comments on the approach to BAT AELs when setting ELVs? Please outline your views on any potential costs or benefits the proposal may bring to you and/or your organisation, as well as any positive or negative impacts it could have on human health or the environment.

Summary of responses

64 of 173 respondents answered the question.

Respondents had mixed views on tightening limits. Many saw environmental and regulatory benefits but concerns about cost and practicality meant there was no clear consensus. Several respondents favoured closer alignment with either the EU or Scottish approaches.

They said this would improve consistency, set clearer expectations and deliver better environmental and health outcomes. Respondents also noted that many sectors already operate below current BAT-Associated Emission Levels (AELs) and argued that stricter limits would reflect achievable performance rather than the least stringent levels.

Industry and trade bodies questioned whether setting ELVs at the lower end of BAT-AELs was feasible or proportionate. They warned it could require major investment in abatement, raise costs and reduce competitiveness, especially for older infrastructure.

Some doubted environmental gains would justify costs and said extra abatement could affect energy efficiency, food hygiene and plant operations.

Respondents also noted that stricter BAT-AELs may not be achievable for all installations because of raw material variability, seasonal conditions or process design. Some warned that focusing on air emissions could increase impacts on water, waste or carbon.

They stressed the need to consider cross-media effects. Many worried that more discretion for regulators could lead to inconsistent decisions and uncertainty, delaying investment and technology. Local authorities said site-specific ELVs would add administrative burdens and require expertise they may lack. Operators said detailed feasibility assessments would slow permitting and strain resources.

Despite these concerns, many supported giving regulators flexibility to set ELVs within BAT-AEL ranges based on site conditions. This was seen as promoting improvement while avoiding disproportionate costs.

Others suggested phased implementation, interim limits and clear guidance to ensure transparency and consistency. Respondents also called for coherence across UK and EU standards and a practical, proportionate approach. Overall, they agreed that clarity, predictability and fairness are essential for ELV changes to deliver environmental benefits without unnecessary burdens.

Government response

It is important that the application of BAT-AELs in permits supports environmental improvement, maintains proportionality and provides regulators and operators with clear expectations.

We will update guidance on setting ELVs in permits, working with the Welsh Government to ensure consistency. The revised guidance will apply when new permits are issued or existing permits are reviewed. It will remove the current instruction to set limits at the upper end of the BAT-AEL range.

Guidance will explain how these ranges should be applied to existing sites and sectors. Existing derogation arrangements will remain where compliance with BAT-AELs is not technically feasible or would impose disproportionate costs relative to environmental benefits.

This approach aligns with the approach currently taken in Scotland and will ensure a level playing field across the UK, while giving regulators flexibility to set the most appropriate limits for a site within a clear and consistent framework.

4.8 Chapter 4 further ideas

Question: Do you agree or disagree that the proposals in this chapter will achieve the goal - ‘Regulator effectiveness and efficiency’? If you disagree then please provide alternative suggestions along with supporting evidence where available

Summary of responses

85 of 173 respondents answered this question.

Of those who responded, a small majority neither agreed nor disagreed that our proposals would achieve the goal ‘Regulator effectiveness and efficiency’, with over a third agreeing and only a handful disagreeing outright.

Respondents expressed strong consensus for constructive reform that improves the wider regulatory system. Industry stressed that it was not resistant to regulation but wanted it to be consistent, dynamic and underpinned by well-resourced, expert regulators who make pragmatic, risk-based decisions.

Operators also emphasised the need for significant change to be signalled early, strongly evidenced and with close consultation with all parties. Many wanted better guidance from regulators, alongside a more flexible, pragmatic and collaborative approach with better communication and engagement.

Respondents’ primary concerns were around permitting timelines, particularly when seeking permit variations that will reduce emissions. Across industry permitting timelines were seen to be leading to uncertainty and frustration and proving to be a barrier to investment.

Many operators sought reassurance that reform proposals would be adequately resourced and funded to ensure that existing timelines are improved and not worsened.

Some respondents did not express outright opposition to increased fees and charges but wished any future increases to be more directly linked to improved service delivery, with regulators therefore ‘stepping-up’ to match industry ambition.

Some consultees including trade bodies, consultancies and non-governmental organisations flagged the importance of learning lessons from prior experience to design better services, regulations and frameworks. Others requested information from incidents is publicly available.

Chapter 5: A transparent framework

5.1 UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR)

Question: What factors should be considered when developing a more transparent reporting framework, including adding new pollutants, lowering reporting thresholds and aligning UK PRTR reporting with other environmental reporting?

Summary of responses

77 of 173 respondents answered the question

The majority of respondents were broadly aligned in their view that the current UK Pollutant Release and Transfer Register (PRTR) reporting framework is outdated and would benefit from modernisation to improve usability.

A key theme across responses was the need for better integration and alignment with other reporting obligations. Many respondents highlighted the avoidable administrative costs owing to duplication across reporting regimes.

There was strong support for a more evidence-based approach to introducing new pollutants or lowering reporting thresholds. Respondents stressed that any additions should be based on clear environmental concern that is supported by data, as well as compatible monitoring technology.

Several respondents, particularly from industry, noted that costs of introducing new pollutants or adjusting thresholds can be substantial, and that proportionality should remain a key principle. Some technical challenges were also identified, including difficulties in monitoring certain pollutants such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) due to their complex nature.

Many respondents emphasised the need for clearer guidance, consistency across regulators and sufficient time for businesses to update systems. Training for operators and regulators was also referenced as essential to ensure effective implementation. Overall, respondents supported a more modern and transparent PRTR, provided that changes are realistic, cost-proportionate and supported by guidance.

Government response

Changes to reporting thresholds or the addition of new pollutants should be based on clear environmental justification and appropriate monitoring capability. We agree that maintaining proportionality will be important so reporting is manageable for business while supporting environmental concerns.

We recognise that delivering a modern and fully integrated PRTR would require significant investment in developing the portal, data architecture and long-term support. Further policy thinking and technical exploration will therefore be required before decisions are made.

We intend to continue close engagement with stakeholders as this work progresses to ensure that any modernisation of the PRTR is proportionate, deliverable and aligned with wider Defra initiatives. Close collaboration will also continue at the global level as the UK is actively helping to shape the PRTR Protocol at the UNECE, which focuses on modernising the protocol for all parties.

Next steps

We will move to more detailed policy development on priority policies as outlined, with the aim of consulting on work packages in the future. The work packages would include:

• a consultation on amendments to the EPRs relating to the regulation of carbon capture activities in 2026
• reforms to improve regulatory mechanisms, such as an improved UK Best Available Techniques (BAT) system, in autumn 2026
• reforms to enable net zero sectors, such as alternative thermal treatment and non-waste anaerobic digestion, in autumn 2026
• a consultation capturing additional priority policies, such as battery energy storage systems, in early 2027
• additional consultation(s) following these on remaining areas, including mining sectoral reforms

We will ensure departments closely coordinate on these future consultations so that they deliver benefits for the environment, public health and growth and are mindful of the Government’s commitment to the 25% Admin Burden Reduction Target.

The consultation and this government response only covers England. However, the devolved governments were engaged during the preparation of the consultation and government response and we intend to continue working closely with them in further developing the policy options outlined.

We will do so in line with the approach agreed through the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control: The Developing and Setting of Best Available Techniques (BAT) Common Framework, developing UK-wide approaches to industrial emissions policy where possible. Responses to this consultation from parts of the UK outside England have been shared with the relevant devolved government department for information, as set out in the consultation document.